Congress wants to raise gas prices.

[Bach]

This bill is supposed to go to vote before Congress next Monday.
-------------


Senators Warn Bill Could Spike Gas $1.50 to $5 a Gallon
Inhofe, Sessions blast massive costs of global warming legislation.

By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
5/15/2008 5:44:34 PM

Worried about gas prices hitting $4 a gallon and beyond? Imagine if they were $6, $7 or even $8 a gallon. Those levels are a certain possibility should Congress pass cap-and-trade legislation, which could face a vote in early June.

Oil is trading at record levels, in excess of $120 a barrel. Leading Republican Sens. James Inhofe (Okla.) and Jeff Sessions (Ala.) both told the Business & Media Institute (BMI) energy prices would drastically increase if the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S. 2191) is signed into law.

“The studies show it would be directly affected, would be a $1.50 a gallon, in addition to what it is today,” Inhofe, the ranking Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said to (BMI).

Inhofe spoke at a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on May 15 to introduce the “We Get It!” campaign – a program founded by evangelical Christians that question the merits of global warming alarmism. According to Inhofe, the bill will make it to the floor of the Senate on June 2.


“So now I think we need to concentrate on what it will cost the American people,” he said during the press conference. “To try to put it in a perspective people understand, if we had ratified, according to the Wharton School of Economics, the Kyoto Treaty, back five years ago, it would have cost about – between $300 and $330 billion – that was the range they had. This bill that’s up today is $471 billion – far more than that. And the question is, what do you get for it?”

Sessions, a member of the Senate’s Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, went a step further. He cited sources that suggest the increase could be as much as $5 a gallon.

“[L]et me tell you what’s heading down the tracks,” Sessions said to BMI on May 14. “In a few weeks, we expect that the cap-and-trade legislation that’s been voted out of Sen. Barbara Boxer’s (D-Calif.) Environment and Public Works Committee will be on the floor and according to the Environmental Protection Agency it will increase gas prices by $1.50. The National Association of Manufacturers says it will increase it as much as $5 per gallon.”

Sessions proposed that money should be spent on energy investment versus a regulatory bureaucracy to enforce the provisions of the Lieberman-Warner bill.


“So instead of actually coming forward with any idea about what to do about rising prices, we’ll soon be voting on a bill that has already passed committee, has some Republican support, that would surge the price of energy, create a bureaucracy – and I just don’t think is the right thing to do,” Sessions said. “I’d rather spend our money in investing in the new the technologies, helping get nuclear power online, improving batteries, researching cellulosic ethanol. Let’s spend our money on that without creating cap-and-trade bureaucracies that have not worked in Europe.”

According to the Energy Information Administration, the average price of a gallon of gas in Europe ranges from $8 to $9 a gallon.

Gas prices have been one of the most reported news stories of the past several years. Reporters have repeatedly warned of prices approaching the levels Inhofe and Sessions warned about. However, journalists have consistently complained about oil company profits, not taxes, making gas prices higher.

On NBC’s May 15 “Today,” host Matt Lauer interviewed ExxonMobil (NYSE:XOM) CEO Rex Tillerson. Lauer quizzed Tillerson on oil companies’ profit margins and higher gas prices, but Lauer didn’t ask Tillerson about the potential impact Lieberman-Warner would have on the price of gasoline.

“Well, the problem we have right now, and fortunately we have several months before the election, to make sure the American people know that this is a supply problem that is causing the gas prices to go up,” Inhofe said to BMI. “You know the Democrats, right down party lines – they do not want to drill in ANWR, they do not want to drill offshore. They don’t want the tar sands. They don’t want more energy. And they don’t want refinery capacity.”

The Senate defeated a measure to drill in ANWR on May 13. The vote, an amendment to another bill, was killed by a vote of 42-56, largely along party lines. Only one Democrat voted for the amendment, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), and five Republicans voting against it.

Inhofe blamed Democratic policies going as far back as the Clinton administration.

“The Democrats are the reason we have high prices at the pumps, and we’re not going to be able to alleviate that until we start producing again in America,” Inhofe added. “And I knew this was happening way back, well 10 years ago, when President Clinton vetoed the bill that would have allowed us to drill in ANWR. I said on the Senate floor that day 10 years ago that in 10 years we would regret this. It’s now 10 years later.”

[PosterChild]

GOP presidential contender John McCain appeared to offer an off-handed endorsement of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act. "I hope it will pass," he told the crowd, "and I hope the entire Congress will join in supporting it and the president of the United States would sign it."

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/5/10/83157/2597

[Bach]

Originally Posted by PosterChild

GOP presidential contender John McCain appeared to offer an off-handed endorsement of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act. "I hope it will pass," he told the crowd, "and I hope the entire Congress will join in supporting it and the president of the United States would sign it."

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/5/10/83157/2597

Yeah, I know McCain is basically a Republicrat. There's several things I don't agree with him about, but he's still the lesser of two evils.

If Obama is elected his plan would end up costing us even more.

Senator John McCain sought to distance himself from President Bush on Monday as he called for a mandatory limit on greenhouse gas emissions in the United States to combat climate change. ... The two Democrats seeking their party’s presidential nomination, Senators Barack Obama of Illinois and Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, criticized the McCain plan as too timid, because their plans would reduce emissions more quickly. ... In his speech, Mr. McCain advocated cutting emissions 60 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050; Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama propose cutting them by 80 percent in the same time frame, while the Lieberman-Warner bills calls for a 70 percent reduction.

[PosterChild]

Originally Posted by Bach

Yeah, I know McCain is basically a Republicrat. There's several things I don't agree with him about, but he's still the lesser of two evils.

If Obama is elected his plan would end up costing us even more.

Senator John McCain sought to distance himself from President Bush on Monday as he called for a mandatory limit on greenhouse gas emissions in the United States to combat climate change. ... The two Democrats seeking their party’s presidential nomination, Senators Barack Obama of Illinois and Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, criticized the McCain plan as too timid, because their plans would reduce emissions more quickly. ... In his speech, Mr. McCain advocated cutting emissions 60 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050; Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama propose cutting them by 80 percent in the same time frame, while the Lieberman-Warner bills calls for a 70 percent reduction.

I know. I know. And I understand the practicality of accepting the lesser of two evils, but I'm not inclined to condone potentially disastrous policy positions like this one. If people intend to vote for McCain they should fully understand what it portends. I don't mean that to be quite as gloomy as it may sound.

[trickblue]

Originally Posted by Bach

Yeah, I know McCain is basically a Republicrat. There's several things I don't agree with him about, but he's still the lesser of two evils.

Outside of his military service, he is a downright disgrace in regards to legislation...

Now that service and what he went through garners him lots of passes...

Other than that? meh...

[dacarmelking210]

Originally Posted by trickblue

Outside of his military service, he is a downright disgrace in regards to legislation...

Now that service and what he went through garners him lots of passes...

Other than that? meh...

EXACTLY! Every time I ask one of his supporters why they are voting for him, the first thing that comes out of his/her mouth is, "his military service." I cannot understand for hte life of me why that would be the sole defining factor in voting for a Presidential candidate. And when I bring up another topic, such as his voting record, they usually say, "eh..im not a big fan of it."
Sure, his service was/is honorable, but will it make him any better of a president? It certainly hasn't (IMO) made him a better senator.

Trick, in your current mindset, do you plan on voting for McCain in November? Based on your previous statement, I certainly hope not. People should be voting for candidates based on the issues rather than personal qualities, such as military service, personality, how "like me" he/she is, et al.

[burmafrd]

Its maybe as simple as looking for something positive to vote for. At least McCain has something. Obama is nothing but hot air.

[burmafrd]

One thing that always puzzles me about the Libs. They want the government to run everything- yet the government has proven itself incapable of doing anything all that well. There is no logic there at all.

[Bach]

Originally Posted by trickblue

Outside of his military service, he is a downright disgrace in regards to legislation...

Now that service and what he went through garners him lots of passes...

Other than that? meh...

And the alternative is what?

I'm the first to say McCain wasn't my first choice. But I'm not going to vote for Obama, the freshman Senator who is even farther left than Hillary and no one else is a viable option.

[Doomsday101]

Why not congress does not pay for their gas or the car they drive.

[AtlCB]

For those of you supporting this idea, keep in mind that your electric and natural gas bills will also increase. Expect all other expenses to increase as well, since almost everything requires electricity to produce and diesel or coal to transport.

[Bach]

Originally Posted by AtlCB

For those of you supporting this idea, keep in mind that your electric and natural gas bills will also increase. Expect all other expenses to increase as well, since almost everything requires electricity to produce and diesel or coal to transport.

The disconcerting part is that many extreme leftist groups actually oppose this bill, because they don't think it goes far enough. They want the bill to be defeated in hopes Obama gets elected and a far more radical, extreme bill can then get passed in the next year or two, which would cost us far more.

[Doomsday101]

Originally Posted by AtlCB

For those of you supporting this idea, keep in mind that your electric and natural gas bills will also increase. Expect all other expenses to increase as well, since almost everything requires electricity to produce and diesel or coal to transport.

You got that right. Every time gas prices increase so do all other products and services out there. Putting extra money in the pockets of the politician is not needed the nature increase of prices will produce the effect they are looking for. Just this holiday weekend it was reported that travel was at an all time low.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Originally Posted by Bach

And the alternative is what?

I'm the first to say McCain wasn't my first choice. But I'm not going to vote for Obama, the freshman Senator who is even farther left than Hillary and no one else is a viable option.

You could actually let your conscious or principles guide you and vote for Barr if you are a conservative.

He is about the only conservative you could actually vote for in the election.

[AtlCB]

Originally Posted by BrAinPaiNt

You could actually let your conscious or principles guide you and vote for Barr if you are a conservative.

He is about the only conservative you could actually vote for in the election.

He is probably the best candidate out there. He'll be hurt by his participation in the Clinton witchhunt and the fact that the Libertarians really don't have their act together. I'll probably cast my vote for him.